James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, August 10, 2009, 12:06 (5583 days ago) @ John Clinch

John is confident that science will explain the origins of life, and that the universe is full of life, but he doesn't "get any of the reasons offered as to why this determines the theistic question." - It doesn't. It only shortens the odds. Each of us has a borderline of conviction, but it varies from individual to individual. I can of course only speak for myself, but if scientists were to decipher and implement the code of life, and if the universe were found to be "full of life" with its own processes of evolution, I would find the theory of chance beginnings considerably more convincing than if scientists fail to crack the code and no evolutionary life is found anywhere except here. And that is what belief is all about ... being convinced. - You wrote that there is no good evidence for NDEs and OBEs, and such a phenomenon "points to a life outside the body. And besides, if it did, all of science is false and that is somewhat unlikely." I don't have a problem with your scepticism, but at the same time I don't see why you have a problem with my open-mindedness. What you call "good evidence" is a subjective judgement, and your reference to science shows that you are only prepared to accept scientific evidence as "good". That is your prerogative. I am not prepared to discount certain personal experiences of my own or of others. Nor am I convinced that science has yet come anywhere near discovering all the talents or dimensions of Nature. - You ask me to "accept that science just says "this is what we think happens." And that essential humility makes it the powerful engine for understanding that it is. It learned a long time ago to leave the metaphysics to others." I have no quarrel with the essential humility of science. My quarrel is with the lack of humility of those who assume that their model is "better" than another model. You consider the scientific model to be the "best guess", which again is your prerogative, and you continue: "Positing another model ... in this case, a metaphysical one which is not falsifiable ... as our best guess, if in contradistinction to a better one, it must be inferior." No-one can deny that if one model is the best it must be better than the one which is not the best, in which case the one which is not the best is inferior. But who decides which is "best"? The difference between us here is that you have made your decision, and I have not, largely because I'm not convinced that the two models are mutually exclusive. I therefore leave the whole question open. - Lastly, we come to something fundamental. You wrote: "Anything that is objectively explicable in principle is the province of science: that includes the origin of life." I have no problem with this either, and have never argued that "because something is unexplained, it is inexplicable." That was your expression, not mine. However, your next argument is your own sortie into the land of non sequiturs. First you quote me (thank you): "...even if eventually scientists do unravel the code that gave rise to life and evolution, they still won't be able to say whether it came about by chance or by design." Your comment is as follows: "This won't do. Once scientists have unravelled such a code, that's it. Game over. The entire underpinning of your argument falls away and there is nothing left to explain. Except, of course, the mystery of mysteries ... that the universe is. Then we talk of God." - What game is over, why is it over, why does the argument fall away? If a conscious intelligence unravels the code, how does that prove that it didn't take a conscious intelligence to devise the code? The mystery of mysteries is that the universe is, and that everything in it is, and "everything" includes life. - I hope that by the time you read this you will have enjoyed your two-week break.